United States District Court, D. Nevada
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE VALERIE P. COOKE, U.S. MAGISTRATE
MINUTES OF THE COURT
ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
the court is plaintiffs motion to compel supplementation to
requests for production of document responses (ECF No. 209).
Defendants opposed the motion (ECF No. 229), and plaintiff
replied (ECF No. 245). The parties also filed a status report
(ECF No. 304) following the court's order to meet and
confer on this motion.
motion to compel supplementation to requests for production
of document responses (ECF No. 209) is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part. Defendants are ordered to supplement their
responses as set forth in the status report filed March 20,
2017 (ECF No. 304).
the requests in dispute, the court hereby rules as follows:
First Request for Production of documents
a. Requests Nos 25-29: Defendants produced grievance
records: 2006-29- 79635, 2006-29-79634, 2006-29-77045,
2006-29-78471, and 2006-29-78209 (ECF No. 229). Defendants
responded that they are not aware of further documents
responsive to this request. Therefore, the motion to compel
supplementation is denied as to these requests.
b. Requests Nos. 30-33: Grievance Nos.
2006-20-90495, 2006-29-84013, 2006-29-85113, and
2006-29-83749 were lodged after plaintiff left ESP on July
23, 2014 and do involve complaints of alleged food tampering
at ESP from February 19 to July 23, 2014. Therefore, these
requests are outside the scope of discovery, and
defendants' objection to producing these requests is
sustained. The motion to compel supplementation as to these
requests is denied.
Nos. 41 & 45: These requests relate to surveillance
video recordings for the time period plaintiff requested or
any policies or procedures specific to video surveillance
recording or retention. Defendants responded that they were
not aware of any video surveillance because there were no
video capabilities during the time frame of February 19 to
July 23, 2014, as video cameras were only in the process of
being installed. Additionally, there was no approved policy
or procedure regarding the new video system at that time.
Therefore, plaintiffs motion to compel supplementation as to
these requests is denied.
Nos 48 & 49: Plaintiff requested personnel records
of NDOC defendants, policies and procedures for maintaining
these files, and personnel documentation detailing the
reasons certain defendants are no longer employed by NDOC.
Defendants objected on the basis that plaintiffs requests
called for documents that are outside the scope of discovery
and confidential and privileged documents. They also objected
on the basis that plaintiffs request was overly broad and
burdensome. Defendants' objection is sustained and
plaintiffs motion to compel supplementation as to these
requests is denied.
Nos. 56-58: Plaintiff requested documents which identify
the inmates who were prescribed psychotropic medications in
his housing units at ESP. Defendants objected on the basis
that these requests exceeded the scope of discovery, called
for confidential and privileged information, called for
information that jeopardized the safety and security of the
institution, and were unduly burdensome. Defendants'
objection is sustained, and plaintiffs motion to compel
supplementation as to these requests is denied.
Third Request for Production of documents
No. 1: Plaintiff requested production of an internal
memorandum regarding plaintiffs urinalysis test. Defendants
objected on the basis of privilege, as the internal
memorandum is protected by executive privilege as it
discusses plaintiffs crime, sentence, institutional history,
inter-state transfer, security threat group issues, and
complaints about staff drugging his food. Defendants contend
the document is deliberative as it reflects on plaintiffs
pre-decisional custody status within the NDOC. Defendants
further contend that disclosure of this memorandum inhibits
the prison system from performing a vital function, inmate
management, as it would discourage candid discussion and